Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory

Author: Conservallectual

Posts

Total: 1,052
#991
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@K_Michael
It is a fact that Socrates existed in that I am >99% confident that he existed, as per the historical consensus.
i'm less convinced that socrates "existed"

and even more than that

i don't think it matters one way or the other

the words we credit to socrates are no more and no less interesting regardless of whether or not someone named socrates actually said them
#992
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
OPINION must be unfalsifiable, personal, experiential, GNOSTIC, qualitative (and emotionally meaningful) (aka NOT fact) QUALIA
Is this just your opinion, or is it a fact?
it is a coherent definition

i'm more than happy to consider your personally preferred alternative
You do know what the point of words are, right, I mean we use them to communicate with each other, you get that don't you?

For that system to work, you can't just make up your own definitions of words, when you do that you are no longer using the word for communicating with others, we need to have agreement about what the words mean for them to facilitate communication. 

Sure, I suppose for you it let the voices in your head communicate, but with other people, if you are using the same words but speaking a different language, then whatever you think you are doing with those words, it isn't communicating. 
#993
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@K_Michael
I have never seen someone insinuate that the past is all qualia before. I am not positing a specific DNA sequence that belonged to Socrates, only stating that the most logical (99.9999% certainty!) conclusion is that he had one.
it's difficult to imagine what enhanced utility this belief might yield if considered "fact" instead of merely "opinion"

are you perhaps trying to start a religion ?
#994
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
everything you know is "map"

therefore, you cannot know "objective facts"
If you can't know objective facts then why are you telling us about objective facts
i'm pointing out to you that your definition of "objective fact" is logically-incoherent (as it relates to human knowledge)
No, you are telling us that objective facts cannot be known, and at the same time telling us you know all about objective facts. 

That is logically incoherent.
#995
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
i'm more than happy to consider your personally preferred alternative definition
#996
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
No, you are telling us that objective facts cannot be known, and at the same time telling us you know all about objective facts. 
i don't know any "objective facts" (and i have never claimed to know any "objective facts")

but i do know the definition of "objective fact"

and i know that the definition is logically-incoherent
#997
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@3RU7AL
i'm less convinced that socrates "existed"

and even more than that

i don't think it matters one way or the other

the words we credit to socrates are no more and no less interesting regardless of whether or not someone named socrates actually said them
I never said it mattered. Only that it is an objective fact. Most facts are not particularly important. We call these trivia.

it's difficult to imagine what enhanced utility this belief might yield if considered "fact" instead of merely "opinion"

Whether or not Socrates existed isn't a matter of opinion. My belief that he did may be false but either it is a fact that he existed, or it is a fact that he did not.

are you perhaps trying to start a religion ?
Religion is famously entangled with faith, the idea of belief in the absence of evidence. I have never attested to have faith in anything.
#998
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
No, you are telling us that objective facts cannot be known, and at the same time telling us you know all about objective facts. 
i don't know any "objective facts" (and i have never claimed to know any "objective facts")

but i do know the definition of "objective fact"

and i know that the definition is logically-incoherent
I should have mentioned this when I was explaining the words thing, remember how there is agreed upon definitions of words to allow us to communicate, well it's sort of the same thing with logic, we can't just make up our own logic either, when you use the word logic you need to be tslking about the thing the rest of us know as logic, it becomes meaningless if you have your own logic.  Try to remember, definitions of words and logic are not a matter of personal preference, it defeats the purpose of words as well as logic, if you make  up your own definitions and logic.  It's OK to use this system for the voices in your head, but in talking to others, you really need to speak our language and use our logic.

With our logic, something is not made logically incoherent by proclamation, there needs to be an argument, and the argument has to be logical, and for it to be effective, the argument needs to use our words and our logic.

Want to give that a try?

Don't tell your self out loud, that doesn't really accomplish anything, tell US, using agreed upon words and logic, why the definition of objective fact is logically incoherent.




#999
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Oh yeah, and another thing.

A definition us about defining something, so if you define it as not existing, that isn't a definition of anything.  So for instance, the definition of objective facts can't be objective facts don't exist, if they didn't exist, then you wouldn't really need a definition for them.


#1000
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
I have never seen someone insinuate that the past is all qualia before. I am not positing a specific DNA sequence that belonged to Socrates, only stating that the most logical (99.9999% certainty!) conclusion is that he had one.
it's difficult to imagine what enhanced utility this belief might yield if considered "fact" instead of merely "opinion"
Utility huh, ok, Im in, it's difficult to imagine what enhanced utility your belief that the definition of objective fact is that there is no such thing as objective fact, what exactly is the utility that might yield from that opinion?



#1001
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
Well being itself isn't a fact, it's a value. 
So what was the objective fact that you were referring to when you said

An objective fact in this context
Because I don’t know what you’ve been reading but I was reading the context as well-being is foundational (since that’s what lead to my objective fact is foundational argument) so if it’s foundational and objective fact is the context then excuse me for putting two and two together.

#1002
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Hehehe 
Thats like a fun fact. 
A moisture accelerator named Charles. 

I can picture the locals taking Charles for a long long drive somewhere and MAKING him do it again shortly after.  
(  just for tests ) 
Especially with all the non evidence Witchdoctors / rainmakers  and others have produced.   

I'm going to have a read about him. 


#1003
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
God either exists.
Orrrrr
God doesn't exist.
#1004
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
(One pile of sand)   +   (One pile of sand)       =    ?
#1005
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Sounds like an interesting film.

But what is a verified person, other than a verified person?
#1006
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
(One pile of sand)   +   (One pile of sand)       =    ?
[1 pile of sand of volume x]   +    [1 pile of sand of volume x]   = [1 pile of sand of volume 2x]

You make it out like it's a complicated question.
#1007
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Hehe.

You shouldn't of went quiet for four hours and come back with a answer. 
#1008
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
It's called sleeping. I'm not on this site 24/7. And it's not like you tagged me. I responded when I came across it.


#1009
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
You shouldn't of went quiet for four hours
I haven't posted on this thread for over 12 hours before this, what are you talking about?
#1010
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Calm down big fella. 
I know.
I'm just kidding. 


#1011
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
Zed. 

I dedicate my 2000 post to you . 
My fave poster / person on site. 

You the Man. ( gives hand signals ) 


Can i get a Zeduk.  
#1012
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
A Zedku for Deb.


Dear Deb 2000.

The voice of reason.

Fingers twitching,

Keys clicking,

Words tumbling,

Into the binary world,

Of this and that.
#1013
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Well being itself isn't a fact, it's a value. 
So what was the objective fact that you were referring to when you said
This too, has been explained multiple times already. Let’s look at the full quote again and then I’ll explain;

“No, they're not. We're talking now about epistemology, which literally translates into "the study of knowledge". An objective fact in this context has to be accepted as such, which requires a mental process to get to that point. That process is what epistemology is, that's what we're discussing.”

When we’re having any normal conversation, the term “objective fact” refers to something as is true regardless of what anyone thinks about it. The truth itself is what the term is pointing to.

When we’re talking about epistemology and discussing concepts like logical fallacies and validity, we’re talking about the mental processes we’re using to assess the reality around us. In this sense the term “objective fact” itself is up for scrutiny because in this philosophical conversation we’re talking about what qualifies something as an objective fact from our philosophical point of view. That’s a very different conversation.

If you read the full quote this is made clear. The very next thing I pointed to are those processes and talked about getting to the point in which we accept something as an objective fact. I was talking about philosophy.
#1014
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R

In this sense the term “objective fact” itself is up for scrutiny because in this philosophical conversation we’re talking about what qualifies something as an objective fact from our philosophical point of view. 
If objective fact is contextually accurate why say the term is up for scrutiny?

this is made clear.
I’m sure most people feel that way in regards to there arguments, if you want another reference pertaining to mine just let me know, because I’m not on an island by myself in case you were thinking that.
#1015
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
If objective fact is contextually accurate why say the term is up for scrutiny?
Because anyone can claim something is or is not an objective fact and there will never be a way to resolve this. That’s why rational conversation about reality can only be had from the point at which we agree that something is an objective fact.

What the term “objective fact” means and whether X is an objective fact are two totally different conversations. What is so hard about this? How many different ways am I going to have to explain this?
#1016
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
Because anyone can claim something is or is not an objective fact and there will never be a way to resolve this.
So did you join this debate site for the sole purposes of wreaking havoc? Because if you don’t believe in resolutions to disputes then what’s the point of disputing?
#1017
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Resolutions to disputes are possible when both sides accept logic and reason as the foundation for what they determine to be true. If you don’t then there’s no resolution here.
#1018
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@K_Michael
@Double_R
That’s why rational conversation about reality can only be had from the point at which we agree that something is an objective fact.
K_Michael said it best in post #956

A fact does not require you to be cognizant of it to be true.
This is what I been trying to tell you, like I said I’m not on an island by myself.
#1019
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
What the term “objective fact” means and whether X is an objective fact are two totally different conversations.
yep
#1020
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
A fact does not require you to be cognizant of it to be true.
This is what I been trying to tell you, like I said I’m not on an island by myself.
Is this a joke?

Can you point to one thing I’ve said that would lead you to believe you needed to explain this to me? Are you not aware that this is in part what I’ve been explaining to you for weeks now?